Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Phil Perry

The climate change debate continues.

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, spacesailor said:

My take on what I read, was,

Your solar system will be switched off, so it Does Not supply your house, making you pay for all of your power !.

spacesailor

 

 

Here is an article from "Solarquotes".  This is a website that has a vested interest in rooftop solar installations   https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/solar-inverter-control/

 

If anyone would be concerned about solar becoming less economically attractive it would be these folks. The above link explains the issue quite well and dispels the myths 

 

 

 

Space I am assuming you do not have rooftop solar. i am wondering how you would feel if you had a power a cut because your neighbours were pouring  excess power into the grid when demand was low. 

 

As an enthusiastic advocate for solar and as someone who has a rooftop system this does not overly concern me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, spacesailor said:

My take on what I read, was,

Your solar system will be switched off, so it Does Not supply your house, making you pay for all of your power !.

spacesailor

That would be an act of complete bastardry, if it were so.

 

However they'd have a hard time explaining how cutting the solar supply off to your house, instead of just stopping the component going back to the grid, would help stabilize the grid.

The idea with solar is that you use it first and anything left over is returned to the grid.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would I do as Marty  suggests. I get paid 44c per kW for my solar and buy from the grid at 23c per kW. I know it is stupid but that is what the government was pushing to get people to install solar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grid stability requires control over grid inputs. While rooftop solar was a minor input, it didn't affect grid stability. Now, however, rooftop solar is a major input to the grid, so there will be times when rooftop solar will have to be limited - at low demand times.

Don't worry, all power generator companies have to do this, too.

Anyway, remember that unless you have a battery and a home system that can cutover from grid to battery, and back when the battery is low, your normal standard grid feed inverter will automatically disconnect your solar energy from the grid whenever your local supply rises above about 245 volts (ish). They have always done this. So, at times when your rooftop grid feed system might upset grid stability, all the distributor has to do is allow the street distribution system to rise above that critical voltage, and hey presto! All rooftop solar will cease to feed into the grid (or supply what your house is using at the time. Remember, your 240volts street supply is 'nominal 240v' and can normally vary by 10%.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Yenn said:

Why would I do as Marty  suggests. I get paid 44c per kW for my solar and buy from the grid at 23c per kW. I know it is stupid but that is what the government was pushing to get people to install solar.

You're one of the lucky ones.  We get about 6 cents back and pay about 26 cents for power from the grid.  In your case it'd be better to switch it somehow so everything you generate goes straight back to the grid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must say I'm a little surprised to see Victoria and NSW have a 10% overvoltage allowance (at a nominal 240V) - making for 264V.

 

The Australian Standard is a nominal 230V, and has been since the early 2000's. This is to bring us into line with European trading partners. But here in W.A., we have the Australian Standard of 230V supply, and a maximum voltage of 253V.

 

https://ewh.ieee.org/r10/nsw/subpages/history/Australian-AC-Line-Voltages.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there you have it. These young pups with their university degrees and research funding have identified the same thing that a silly Old Man Emu spoke about on these very pages quite some time ago. The Southwest Sydney area is a cool air reservoir that is an integral part of the climate of the Sydney Basin. This http://www.condellpark.com/bear/smogbasin.htm#Figure7 is a bit dated, and off topic but it is the best illustration of the air circulation system as it was at the start of the 21st Century. The caption for Figure 2 is now out of date. The V-shaped area between the indicated roads and the top of the map are now filling with houses, or are planned to be filled.

 

image.thumb.png.9e83c79190d7dfffe1d31f61d251cc29.png

 

These housing developments consist of very small block sizes with dark-roofed houses covering them to the exclusion of anything else.

image.thumb.png.f8cd23e8b0690a2d7516ac142ca279a2.png

 

This is what is happening in Sydney's southwest. Similar crowded development is occurring in the northwest of the Basin. 

 

It won't be long before those who fly from Camden to Bankstown will be able to put a tourist sticker on their plane "I Flew the Nullabor" 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dark roofs are going to heat up the atmosphere, but architects made them popular. I have just come back from two weeks away travelling in N Qld. I notice all the new subdivisons, all with Victorian style houses, brick or other solid walls and minimal eaves. Everyone of them air conditioned. That must cost an arm and a leg and is so stupid as the old Queenslander was a very comfortable house in Summer. Of course the local governments do not help as they practically insist that houses must be air conditioned. They have only recently allowed water tanks and even then they must not be plumbed into anywhere where somaone could drink the water. I thimnk the main reason is to force people to drink town water, which is so foul tasting that they prefer soft drinks.

Our illustrious leader sems to be hell bent on promoting coal, to the detriment of the environment, now he wants to steal the money for renewables and use it to promote caol.

I really don't think excess solar electricity can be responsible for raising the voltage and therefore shutting down the PV electricity being fed into the grid. THe other day my system said it was overvoltage and the sun was hardly over the horizon. Something else does it as well.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we have any real hairy-chested denier on the forum?  If so, here's my question.. Is there ANY bit of evidence that you will accept and change your mind?

In real life, I do know a couple of real deniers, one of whom is a real well scientifically educated guy. But I notice that they refuse to look at the total evidence and instead focus on the odd tiny bits of contrary evidence. 

For example, as climate change proceeds, there are a couple of small areas where the temperature has fallen, due to changing wind patterns.  Further, some years ago, there were papers published about how a new ice age was upon us. Also, the current  forecasts have not been correct to the fraction of a degree.

So I repeat my question... what ( if anything ) will convince them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bruce I fear many are like Trump's rusted-on supporters and nothing will sway them, even though their own kids will have to deal with the developing mess. Too many climate change predictions are coming true, some decades ahead of schedule. 

Most ominous is permafrost thawing in Siberia, releasing masses of methane- a greenhouse gas many times worse than CO2.

 

Even a small rise in sea level displaces hundreds of millions, who will join the multitudes already flocking to the rich countries that caused this mess. How can Australia stop them? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I'll bite. I am not convinced that (a) there is significant climate change that is not part of natural variation and (b) that humans are causing a runaway climate disaster. I am happy to concede that burning all that fossil fuel has had some effect, but not that it is responsible for major climate change. I am happy that we will transition to other sources of energy and have no reason to oppose it as long as we do not leave people dying of heat exhaustion in summer or freezing to death in winter due to lack of electricity. Or in long term unemployment with all the mental effects of that.

 

I have posted extensively about this previously in this thread but have concluded that I am wasting my time putting up references, charts and data. People believe what they want to believe.

 

I have a Bachelor of Science degree from  the University of NSW and a Master of Science degree in Geological Science from Macquarie University. They don't make me any sort of an expert, but I am not stupid either. I am not a climate change denier whatever that is but am certainly a skeptic.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climate change will depend upon where you are. There is a theory that if the climate warms up and the North polar waters thaw, then the gulf stream will stop running and the UK will become much colder. Still climate change but not warming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not as fully understood, but I'd say that if the Antarctic melts, the water circulating in the Pacific Ocean will become colder as well. Maybe that will increase rainfall over the west of the South America and turn deserts there into habitable areas. The opposite seems to have happened in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

OK, I'll bite. I am not convinced that (a) there is significant climate change that is not part of natural variation and (b) that humans are causing a runaway climate disaster.

Good to hear from you, PM.  You and I might be seeing the world thru different eyes.  To me the evidence for climate change is obvious and very concerning; some of the changes are unprecedented in human history. The thawing of Siberian permafrost alone could cause a catastrophic rise in temperature.

Quote

I am happy that we will transition to other sources of energy and have no reason to oppose it as long as we do not leave people dying of heat exhaustion in summer or freezing to death in winter due to lack of electricity. Or in long term unemployment with all the mental effects of that.

The fossil fuel lobby has ran an insidious fear campaign. They blamed power outages and rising electricity prices on renewables; what hypocrisy! Storms caused the SA outages, some of our coal burners are quite unreliable and rising prices have more to do with dodgy industry management than the shift to renewables.

 

Renewables already employ as many people as the coal industry.

Quote

I have posted extensively about this previously in this thread but have concluded that I am wasting my time putting up references, charts and data. People believe what they want to believe.

I have read most of your posts and haven’t yet been convinced of your point of view.

 

There are several good reasons for Australia to phase out fossil fuels and embrace the rapidly advancing renewable revolution.  

 

Renewables are already cheaper than the heritage fuels we used to rely on.

Global financiers can see that renewables are our future and are dropping fossil fuel projects like hot potatoes; they are rapidly becoming stranded assets.

 

Preventing this country becoming an international pariah state (as was Apartheid South Africa) is more than enough reason in itself.

If we don’t, the global community will expect Australia (perceived as a rich, developed country with lots of spare room) to take in vast numbers of refugees displaced by rising seas, storms, floods and droughts...

and I doubt we’d get to pick and choose.

Don’t doubt this could happen; Australia’s human rights reputation has taken a battering in the last decade or so; we have rapidly alienated many international allies.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not too many years ago, Sydney used to experience very strong westerly winds in August, with the winds continuing to blow for several days in a row. This August the winds were not noticeably strong. However, here we are at the end of September and we have been getting strong winds (gust up to 62 kts) from the NNW.

 

It makes me wonder if that is a sign of change to the usual weather patterns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a climate change skeptic, and as I've previously stated, my argument is that the climate on this planet is vastly older than mankinds inhabitation of the Earth - and it runs in major recurrent time cycles, with large variations in weather conditions over extended periods.

As an indicator of these extremes, we have engineering and planning measurements, known as "1 in 100 year," "1 in 250 year", and "1 in 500 year" calculated extremes in wind strength and flood levels, that have a major bearing on how strong man--made structures have to be built, or how high or low those structures can be positioned.

Those weather extremes, related to engineering and planning design, show that there are regular extremes in wind and water levels, that can seriously affect structures and planning. Accordingly, there must be extremes of low wind strength periods and low water levels (drought).

Extended droughts (Mega-droughts)  have been recorded regularly as long as Mankind has kept written records that have survived. It's a shame that many accurate records from the past have not survived, due to upheaval of civilisations, poor recording materials, and simple vandalism and destructive acts by humans.

 

The weather extremities cycles are often in periods that are not even. There has been talk of steady cycles of extremes, but I believe they are not always steady periods, because of the vast number of inputs that affect our climate and our weather.

In addition, the weather cycles that have run for hundreds of millions of years, have only been measured with a degree of global accuracy, for the last 30 years. Then highly educated people promptly make claims that they can see major and massive changes to the worlds climate, based on measurements, that in a time span, is equal to about 0.000000001% of the climate length on Earth.

Based on any other scientific proof standard, this is the equivalent of claiming to be able to identify an animal, its habitat, its breeding methods, and its characteristics, simply by examining a hair follicle found from that animal. 

 

I have no tertiary qualifications of any kind to back up my position or my ruminations as regards climate change - it's just that I have spent a very large part of my working life (55 years) studying weather on a practical basis as it constantly affected my business operations and income.

We are most certainly suffering from an extended period of lower-than-normal annual rainfall levels across Australia, as well as some variations in other climatic conditions. The ice sheet and glacier shrinkage are certainly real and visible events, but I would opine that this has happened before, in previous centuries, without the massive "calculated" sea level rises, that experts have predicted. This is all part of climate cycles, and I believe we have periods where various climate cycles overlap, creating extremes in weather events.

 

In addition, I have serious reservations about a U.N. division formed to examine and continually produce reams of reports about climate change - which major bureaucratic structure must continually increase in size and importance, and continually justify its existence, by promoting the principle of climate change, to ensure continued funding. And as we all know, once bureaucracies are established, they need to continually grow, and become more important in exercising control over our lives.

Edited by onetrack
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The recorded climate has seen a warm periods followed by a cold period in the 2000 years from 250 BCE.

 

The Roman Warm Period, or Roman Climatic Optimum, was a period of unusually warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic that ran from approximately 250 BC to AD 400. Theophrastus (371 – c. 287 BC) wrote that date trees could grow in Greece if they were planted, but that they could not set fruit there. That is the case today, implying that South Aegean mean summer temperatures in the 4th and 5th centuries BC were within a degree of modern ones. That and other literary fragments from the time confirm that the Greek climate then was basically the same as it was around AD 2000. Tree rings from the Italian Peninsula in the late 3rd century BC indicate a time of mild conditions there at the time of Hannibal's crossing of the Alps with imported elephants (218 BC). Dendrochronological evidence from wood found at the Parthenon shows variability of climate in the 5th century BC, which resembles the modern pattern of variation.

 

The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) also known as the Medieval Climate Optimum, or Medieval Climatic Anomaly was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region lasting from c. 950 to c. 1250. It is thought that between c.  950 and c. 1100 was the Northern Hemisphere's warmest period since the Roman Warm Period. It was likely related to warming elsewhere while some other regions were colder, such as the tropical Pacific. Average global mean temperatures have been calculated to be similar to early-mid-20th-century warming. Possible causes  include increased solar activity, decreased volcanic activity, and changes to ocean circulation.

 

The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period. Although it was not a true ice age, the term was introduced into scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939. It has been conventionally defined as a period extending from the 16th to the 19th centuries, but some experts prefer an alternative time span from about 1300 to about 1850. Several causes have been proposed: cyclical lows in solar radiation, heightened volcanic activity, changes in the ocean circulation, variations in Earth's orbit and axial tilt (orbital forcing), inherent variability in global climate, and decreases in the human population (for example from the Black Death and the colonization of the Americas).

 

Based on the number of years between these climate extremes, one could speculate that between 450 CE and 900 CE there was a cool period, which could be shown by tree-ring analysis and pollen counts from buried material. Likewise one hundred and fifty years from the end of the Little Ice Age to the beginning of the 21st Century seems a reasonable period before the start of another warm period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science is in folks.  The amount of scientific consensus over this is overwhelming.  Saying anthropomorphic climate change isn't real is kind of like saying cancer isn't real (and trusting the fossil fuel to solve it is like trying to cure that cancer with the power of prayer).

 

Reading Malcolm Turnbull's book at the moment and it's enlightening to hear from someone who dealt one on one with the conservative rump of the LNP.  Idiots like Canavan, Abbott and their ilk have an awful lot to answer for.

 

To be fair, so do the Greens.  If they'd voted with Rudd on the ETS we'd have had a proper mechanism to price carbon for over a decade now.  

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what all this proves to me is that the earth's temp is a very sensitive thing. This should be no surprise... between -270 and +5800 degrees, what is a 2 degree difference?

( the -270 is interstellar gas temp, while the 5800 it the sun's radiation temp.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BUT

the Earth has been Frozen then Scorched over and over for eons.

Now,  the New date of 450 million years ago. The temperature knocked-out a lot of marine life and gave rise to the Dinosaurs.

spacesailor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jerry, thanks for a great post. I'd love to have you drop in for dinner and debate, any time. But I warn you, it might be a long debate. Don't worry, in spite of us sharing many views, I'm pretty sure we'd keep it lively but harmless.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The year 1816 is known as the Year Without a Summer  because of severe climate abnormalities that caused average global temperatures to decrease by 0.4–0.7 °C (0.72–1.3 °F). Summer temperatures in Europe were the coldest on record between the years of 1766–2000. This resulted in major food shortages across the Northern Hemisphere.

 

Evidence suggests that the anomaly was predominantly a volcanic winter event caused by the massive 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora in April in the Dutch East Indies (known today as Indonesia). This eruption was the largest in at least 1,300 years (after the hypothesized eruption causing the extreme weather events of 535–536), and perhaps exacerbated by the 1814 eruption of Mayon in the Philippines.

 

This period also occurred during the Dalton Minimum (a period of relatively low solar activity), specifically Solar Cycle 6, which ran from December 1810 to May 1823. May 1816 in particular had the lowest sunspot number (0.1) to date since record keeping on solar activity began. The lack of solar irradiance during this period was exacerbated by atmospheric opacity from volcanic dust.

 

Solar activity also affects our climate. The solar cycle or solar magnetic activity cycle is a nearly periodic 11-year change in the Sun's activity measured in terms of variations in the number of observed sunspots on the solar surface. Solar activity, driven both by the sunspot cycle and transient aperiodic processes govern the environment of the Solar System planets by creating space weather and impact space- and ground-based technologies as well as the Earth's atmosphere and also possibly climate fluctuations on scales of centuries and longer.

 

With all these things going on, it makes one wonder how significant is Mankind's contribution. As for methane production, how much methane would a large population of herbivorous dinosaurs have produced during the life span of one of the herd?

  • Agree 1
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...